Every LEED Certification/Accreditation Fee In One Place

I had a few requests today at work for clarifications on LEED fees, presumably because they're a little hard to find or that they require 3-4 clicks to get to from the main website and my coworkers are lazy (just kidding... please don't fire me!)

Perhaps an unfair picture for this post, but then again...

As a result, I thought all you LEED power users might appreciate a post that will link directly to fees for every rating system. In each case, fees all versions of the rating system are indicated:

• LEED New Construction
• LEED for Schools
• LEED for Core and Shell (includes fees for LEED-CS Precertification)
• LEED for Commercial Interiors
• LEED for Existing Buildings, Operations and Maintenance (includes fees for recertification)
• LEED for Neighborhood Development (includes fees for all review stages)
• LEED for Homes (does not include fees for LEED Provider or Green Rater)
• LEED Green Associate Exam (includes Credentialing Maintenance costs)
• LEED Accredited Professional Exam (includes all specialties and Credentialing Maintenance costs)
• LEED for Homes Green Rater Exam

So that's that, and I hope it makes you're life slightly easier... If any of these links break please let me know by leaving a comment!

Daylighting Simulation in LEED 2009: 2 Models = Unanswered Questions

Despite the fact that I almost live on the interwebs and have a penchant for butchering images in photoshop, I'm not the most technologically advanced person when it comes to Revit and the bevy of associated environmental modeling programs available. I got an email from one of my colleagues asking how to interpret the following requirement for compliance with EQc8.1, Daylight and Views, Daylight credit using Option 1, Simulation, and I'd like your help in determining an appropriate response:

"Demonstrate through computer simulations that 75% or more of all regularly occupied spaces areas achieve daylight illuminance levels of a minimum of 25 footcandles (fc) and a maximum of 500 fc in a clear sky condition on September 21 at 9 a.m. and 3 p.m...”

The issue here is that they ask you to generate two models (one at 9am and the other at 3pm), but no guidance is provided about how to combine these models to show that 75% of the space meets the footcandle requirements...

What the hell does this image have to do with a post about daylighting compliance?*

Previous editions of LEED forced you to simulate the daylighting levels at noon, and I suspect that by using solar positions that are 'lower' in the sky more projects should be able to claim credit since daylight should penetrate more deeply into the building. The reference guide goes on to discuss other issues surrounding the simulation, but none resolve the problem brought to my attention earlier today. My reading of this leads me to two possible interpretations:

'Subtractive' Compliance

In the 'subtractive' compliance scenario, you would take the two floor plans and run the daylight intensity model for both and mark the compliant square footage on each. You would then combine the two models, and only include the spaces that are compliant on BOTH models in your calculations to determine if 75% of the overall regularly occupied space and mark your compliant square footage. The result is a combined space that is smaller than either model individually.

'Additive' Compliance

This interpretation would require you to generate the two models, but instead of cutting out the spaces that are not compliant at both times, you combine the two for a larger footprint than was created by either model.

The final word?

After I wrote 95% of this post, it occurred to me I should scan the forums for an answer, and I found a reasonably definitive answer on the LEEDuser forums**, courtesy of Jill Dalglish at Dalglish Daylighting:

"I received this statement in a response from USGBC Technical Customer Service: 'The simulation needs to document compliance at both 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.. Only areas that meet the requirements at both of these times are considered complaint.' To me, this means that you cannot take an average and you cannot evaluate the two times separately, ie. you cannot include the space in the compliant area if 75% of it meets the footcandle requirement at 9am and then also meets it at 75% at 3pm (unless that 75% overlaps.)"

This clearly supports the 'subtractive' method of compliance, but I'd love to hear from someone who has performed and submitted and had this strategy approved in a LEED review. Please share your experience by leaving a comment!

Forgive my Rant

Another sidenote to anyone at the USGBC responsible for developing the reference manuals: This is ridiculous! It's one thing that this slipped through the cracks in the first edition of the reference guide, but to also miss it in the addenda makes me want to scream... It would be one thing if it was a minor issue, but people cannot complete their documentation without this critical piece of knowledge! How is this overlooked (at least) twice?

* Free kudos and (if desired) a link to the site of your choice to the first commenter who points out what, if anything, this picture has to do with this post... Liz, you can't enter!

** FULL DISCLOSURE: LEEDuser is a sponsor of this site... I know there's been a bunch of of 'full disclosure' posts lately, and I can only offer my word that it's not by design! I really do use my sponsor's sites on a regular basis.

Residental LEED Projects Already Surpass Commercial Projects in Total Certifications

I noticed a while back from the USGBC updates that residential certifications were quickly catching up to their commercial counterparts. A USGBC Update from 03.11.10 there are now 5,000 'residential' certifications and 4,890 commercial projects in existence, though there are still slightly more commercial registered projects... amazing growth considering the first LEED-NC system was released over ten years ago while LEED-Homes was only launched in April of 2009...

USGBC Update from 03.11.10

I think this is great news... at this point everyone in the industry knows about LEED, so the only growth in awareness is going to have to come from the general public. As LEED Homes grows in popularity it only stands to reason that the other systems will gain wider recognition and demand as well. Wider demand means better benefits for certification (in higher lease rates and such), which will then spur increased demand for certification, which means more awareness still, and the glorious feedback loop continues on and on...

Details and More Details

When I first noticed this I shot off a quick email to the USGBC communications department to get some clarity on the distinction between 'residential' and 'commercial' projects. (Before you ask... I got a very timely reply... the fault for the delay in the post is all mine!) Residential projects are comprised of residential units, not necessarily project certifications (e.g. a multifamily building with 8 units earning a single LEED Homes rating counts not once but eight times) certified under traditional LEED for Homes or the LEED for Homes Mid-Rise Pilot systems. Commercial buildings are presumably everything else...

The next question I asked was whether the growth LEED Homes speciality accreditations were outpacing the other systems, but the response from the USGBC was that this is not the case yet...

LEED VOC Budget Calculations Explained

I stumbled onto concise but comprehensive article by Chris Dixon in Walls & Ceilings magazine called Straight Green: Alternative VOC Calculation for LEED. Basically, it walks you through the process of preparing a VOC budget (what you need to do if the contractor slips in a non-compliant paint or adhesive) as an alternative compliance measure for achieving EQc4, Low Emitting Materials credits. I could go into more detail, but instead I'll just recommend reading the article for yourself!

VOC Budget Example

This article was published in 2008, and references LEED-NCv2.2 standards, though my understanding is that the methodology should not have changed in the 2009 edition of the same system, and that it should also apply to LEED-CI, LEED-CS, and LEED-Schools systems.

via 4specs discussion forum

Key Baseline Changes in 2009 Edition of WEc3, Water Use Reduction

I recieved a call from a project architect this morning who had designed a large LEED Core and Shell v2.0 project who in turn had received a call from another architect who is working on a LEED Commercial Interiors v3.0 (2009 edition) upfit of the same building. While we were able to earn 2 points for reducing expected water use by 30.1% in the LEED-CS submittal, when the upfit architects were looking at the water use reductions based on the LEED-CI requirements they determined that the anticipated reduction was only 10.8%. This level of reduction doesn't even meet the new 20% reduction requirement found in the WEp1, Water Use Reduction prerequisite!* What happened? Did we miscalculate the original submittal?

The Unusable Faucet... The latest in water use reduction technology

We (or rather our consultant engineer) didn't miscalculate anything! After taking a closer look at comparing the calculations for both the v3 and v2 editions, we discovered that LEED has adjusted the baseline rate for public faucets from 2.2 gpm down to 0.5 gpm, meaning that while we had substantial flow rate reductions in the LEED-CS v2.0 submittal, none could be claimed for the LEED-CI v3.0 calculation even though the fixture specs were the same. The updated baseline standard applies to v3 editions of LEED-NC, LEED-CS, LEED-Schools, and LEED-CI systems. The change stems from the inclusing of the "maximum [flow rate] incorporated into the national Uniform Plumbing Code and the International Plumbing Code[s]" into the updated requirements. LEED-EB:OM v3.0 sets the anticipated baseline on these standards, but that was the case on the v2 edition as well so nothing has changed there from what I can see.

While the v2 baselines applied a 2.2 gpm baseline requirement for all bathroom lavatories, the v3 system distinguishes between 'public' and 'private' commercial restrooms and residential bathrooms. A private restroom is anything that would regularly be used by only one person at a time: hotel/motel guest bathrooms, hospital patient room bathrooms, and arguably bathrooms serving single offices (e.g. bathroom in the CEO's office used only by that person). All residential bathrooms and these private bathrooms are still held to the same 2.2 gpm baseline as before. Everything else (hotel lobby, shared office, school, and retail and restaurant bathrooms, etc.) are now held to the .5 gpm baseline.

I should point out that I think this is a good change... it's ridiculous to put anything other than a .5 gpm in sinks that will likely never be used for anything other than handwashing or perhaps brushing your teeth, especially when you consider a .5 gpm replacement aerator costs about $2. It also makes sense to keep private bathrooms to a higher standard, since people may be filling coffee pots or other containers that could be annoying if you were limited to such a low flow rate. I've installed a variable flow rate faucet in my kitchen that works great since I leave it on the low setting until I need to fill something up, but my bathroom sink uses a .5 gpm aerator. I should point out that people using on-demand water heaters may have problems in that the flow rate is so low that it may not trigger the water heater to turn on!

Bottom line... I think this is another instance of LEED moving in the right direction by tightening the requirements a bit, but people used to the v2 systems such as myself should definitely make a point to realize that a 20% reduction in v2 is not necessarily 20% in v3. Disagree with me? Please let me know by leaving a comment!

*I should note here that as the bathrooms in question are part of the shared core space of the facility, they should presumably not impact the LEED-CI calculations at all since they are outside of the scope of the upfit**, but any project that upgraded or is considering upgrading from a v2 system to it's v3 equivalent should take note of this change and evaluate the impact on their scores and ability to meet the WEp1 prerequisite.

**NOTE - 02.17.10 - Nathan has questioned the accuracy of the assumption that the existing fixtures would be outside of the scope of the prerequisite in the comments, and I don't have an 2009 IDC reference guide on-hand to refer to so I can provide a definitive answer. I've always been a little hazy on how the scope of a LEED-CI project is set, and since I don't have direct experience in LEED-CI I could very possibly be wrong!

Why You're Not Going to Get the Extra Point(s) for WEc1, Water Efficient Landscaping

I've had an issue come up multiple times in the past few weeks that I hope in telling will prevent you from similar headaches. In multiple projects that I've been involved in, we have situations where 100% of the water used for landscaping is being supplied by non-potable sources, yet in every case we will not be earning the 2nd point (v2 rating systems) or the other 2 points (v3 rating systems) for WEc1, Water Efficient Landscaping... Why, you ask?

Read Carefully!

The issue with WEc1 is that the basic requirements listed in the rating system omit a very key statement which can only be found buried deep in the reference guides. Here I'm quoting from the LEED-NCv2.2 reference guide, but I checked and the v3 edition has the same problem:

"If the Percent Reduction of Potable Water is equal to or greater than 50%, WEc1.1 is earned."

So far, so good... nothing unexpected... but wait!

"If the Percent Reduction of Potable Water is 100%, you must also calculate the Percent Reduction of Total Water (Potable plus Reuse) according to Equation 7 […the long one where you have all the landscape coefficients and such]. If the Percent Reduction of Potable Water is 100% and the Percent reduction of Total Water is equal to or greater than 50%, WEc1.2 is earned in addition to WEc1.1.

The problem here is that the rating systems (the requirements you get to view for free) make no mention anywhere of the fact that TOTAL water use, not just potable, must be reduced by 50% along with the 100% potable water reduction in order to earn the additional point(s). It only shows up deep in the "Calculations" section of the reference guides...

If you have ample supply of non-potable water sources for a project, it is less likely that the design team has examined in detail the total water consumption of the landscaping as performing these calculations is time-consuming (read: costly).

Why this requirement isn’t stated upfront in the credit language is lost on me, but the fact remains we must not only reduce potable water use completely but also total water demand based on the LEED calculations. Had I recognized this before the latest update, I would certainly have suggested an amendment to the rating system during the public review. Let's all make an effort to correct this during public comments for the v4 rating systems!

Disagree with my interpretation? Did you slip one by a review team and get the extra points without anyone noticing? Let us know by leaving a comment!

FREE Unlocked LEED 2009 Checklists That Don't Suck!

UPDATE (07.15.10): The USGBC has now updated the official checklists incorporating pretty much all of the features called for in the post and from your comments! Check out this post for direct links to each of the checklists that are now unlocked, feature a notes section, and highlight whether the credit is part of the design or construction review.

You may have heard me rant about the credit checklists the USGBC has released, and I've finally gotten around to doing something about it. Below you'll find links to Excel checklists for each of the five v2009 (aka v3) rating systems (...if you think I'm going to try to revamp the LEED-Homes checklist you're insane). Each prints to a single page, has an area for notes, and is COMPLETELY UNLOCKED, so if you don't like something you can edit it on your own. I use the notes all the time to keep track of consultant comments and changes... it's the best way I'm aware of for tracking changes in LEED points over time, just put a date in front of the filename and you have a snapshot in time!

• LEED-NC 2009 Checklist
• LEED-CS 2009 Checklist
• LEED-CI 2009 Checklist
• LEED-EB 2009 Checklist
• LEED-Schools 2009 Checklist

NOTE: All five checklists were setup to use the whole page, and you may need to adjust the margins for them to print properly. All five use 0.0" for header and footer, .35" for top and bottom margins, and .25" for left and right margins. Admittedly, those with poor eyesight probably aren't going to like how they print, as the text gets pretty small. I would simply recommend changing it from a one page print to a two page print and adjusting the notes width to get it back to normal proportions.

New USGBC Official Checklists

In the USGBC's defense, they have released (without telling anyone that I can see) new and genuinely improved Excel checklists that feature two tabs: a one-page simplified printing option and a more detailed view similar to past editions. Unfortunately, they're still hung up on forbidding editing of any kind and for some reason have bathed the checklists in a disgusting yellow color. Some may find these new checklists preferable for their purposes though, so I've linked to those directly below for your convenience:

• LEED-NC 2009 Checklist
• LEED-CS 2009 Checklist
• LEED-CI 2009 Checklist
• LEED-EBO&M 2009 Checklist
• LEED-Schools 2009 Checklist
• LEED-Homes Checklist

Do you have a pressing need for similar unprotected checklists for older LEED systems (e.g. v2)? Do my checklists stink? Let me know how to make them better by leaving a comment!

New LEED MRc7, Certified Wood Credit Fair But Complex

or

How I Learned to Accept a Change from Simple Imperfection to Torturous Accuracy

Yesterday the USGBC released the 2nd draft of the proposal for a new MRc7, Certified Wood credit for LEED-NC, LEED-Schools, LEED-CI, LEED-CS, and LEED-EBOM. You may remember that this was ultimately spurred by the lumber industry's complaints about how their own certification label, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), was unfairly excluded from the LEED credit which only recognized the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC) more rigorous requirements. You can view the results of a report comparing various lumber certification schemes here. The new proposal is lengthy enough that I thought a summary here, with some commentary, might be useful to you guys.

More Complexity Please

As a result the USGBC's consensus-based process for developing new standards has developed a more inclusive and equitable standard for ranking the standards called the USGBC Forest Certification Benchmark. The new approach is a sort of LEED system within LEED where if a particular forest certification standard complies with over 48 prerequisites and more than 40% of the 32 voluntary credits (sound familiar?), you may attribute the cost of those products towards your "certified wood" percentage needed to earn credit MRc7.

A sample from page 10 of the benchmark requirements

The more a particular scheme complies with with the voluntary requirements, the greater the relative value of that product you may contribute to hitting your 50% (based on cost) certified wood threshold needed to earn the credit (click here for the new LEED-NC credit draft for yourself):

Really compliant schemes now are worth 3x as they actually cost

This may all sound a bit ridiculous, but to be fair, the requirements themselves all seem make good sense and is necessary to thwart claims that the USGBC is in the back pocket of any particular certification body. By establishing a standard for standards, the USGBC can simply point out the deficiencies of any particular standard instead of (seemingly) arbitrarily accepting or rejecting individual groups. I'm by no means a sustainable forestry expert, but given the 1,800 comments received on the first draft I'd be amazed if anything substantial slipped through the cracks.

Please Follow Through With This!

"Building project teams will not be required to determine if a particular forest certification scheme meets the Benchmark’s requirements." So says the executive summary of the proposal, and I can't stress enough how important it is that the USGBC make it extremely easy for LEED APs to find out the status of one certification system over another. If I had it my way, I would only review certification schemes every two years and list all accepted schemes in the reference guide. If it's not in there tough luck, there's always LEED 2011. It's extremely important that I don't need to become an expert on the shifting forest certification system policy... All the USGBC has released on this end of the revisions is the Forest Certification Benchmark Conformance Assessment Process draft, which is a little light on details.

At a minimum, the USGBC should clearly indicate where to find a COMPLETE list of the current status of any particular forest certification system on the USGBC website, preferably on a URL that never changes. This website should be listed not just in the reference guide but also in the rating system itself.

Will my project be affected?

Though the new standard will only be required if you register a project after the date the credit is accepted (still a ways off). Once accepted though, you are permitted to use the new option in existing projects (v2009 or earlier) as an alternative compliance option.

Last Chance to Change

If you're vehemently opposed to this new system or you have some thoughts on how to improve it, you have until October 15th, 2009 to make your voice heard. Anyone can comment, not just USGBC members, but when it comes up for vote it's members only. I'm also curious to hear your thoughts hear, so please share your thoughts by leaving a comment!

Just noticed this is the 100th post!

LEED Commissioning Comparisons

When helping a client prepare packages for a grant they are pursuing, they needed to know how LEED-EB and LEED-CI differed with respect to commissioning (Cx) requirements. A quick search yielded a helpful, plain spoken article, with even more helpful comparison charts (1, 2, 3, 4), in a February edition of Heating, Piping, and Air Conditioning (HPAC) Engineering magazine. The charts show fundamental Cx requirements, enhanced Cx requirements, and scope by system, comparing all major LEEDv2 systems and even pulling requirements from the pilot versions of LEED-CI for Retail and LEED-Healthcare. I'm not aware of any major changes among Cx requirements for LEED 2009 editions of these systems, so everything should still largely apply.

A completely legible comparison of the scope of Cx for each system

I haven't had much opportunity to peruse their website in too much detail, but their Popular Articles section seems to be filled with practical info that I'm going to refer to in the future. Well done!

The BIG Review: LEED 2009 Reference Guides Released

NOTE - This is the longest post in Real Life LEED history. You may groan at the thought of reading the text below, but I assure you it's a much quicker way to get up to speed with the changes in the new LEED 2009 systems then reading through the new reference guide as I did. Man up, read the following, and sound smart around your colleagues.

For those that aren't aware, the LEED 2009 reference guides are now available for purchase online. There is also an expanded page on LEED 2009 info that features some new date information. The most important fact is that LEED 2009 registrations go live on April 27th, though you won't be required to register under the new version until June 27th, which is two months earlier than previously announced. Current v2 projects can voluntarily opt into the new v3 system from the April launch until October 24th. Here is an updated schedule direct from the USGBC:

Back to the reference guides... There are two versions available - a hard-copy that comes with 30-day access to a non-printable PDF, and an 'e-book' version that is a printable PDF for $10 less. Both can be downloaded and saved. I opted for the e-book version, and I imagine most will do the same. Amazingly, you have to pay shipping for either copy? And just in case you forget the copyright agreement you agreed to with the E-book don't worry, it's watermarked on EVERY FREAKIN' PAGE of the reference guide.

Though I've not worked with the material yet, it appears that there are more detailed examples and many more helpful tables, charts, and graphs. In general it seems like this guide is more user-friendly. A last bit of good news is that the entire guide is a single file instead of being annoyingly split into the different categories as was done previously.

If you're not yet ready to drop $144 for a reference guide, the official rating systems are now posted on the USGBC website. There isn't anywhere near as much detail, but it's certainly more than nothing. For some reason the minimum project requirements aren't in the reference guide, so you have to download these to see that anyway:

• LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
• LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings and Operations & Maintenance
• LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors
• LEED 2009 for Core and Shell
• LEED 2009 for Schools doesn't appear to be loaded as of 03/28/09

Some bad news... the new Green Building Design and Construction Reference Guide, 2009 Edition clocks in at a whopping 674 pages, but some supremely good news is that they combined the LEED-Schools, LEED-NC, and LEED-CS guides all into one, saving you money. LEED for Healthcare and LEED for Retail will be included, but as they're still in pilot they aren't at this time. LEED-CI and LEED-EB still get their own reference guides... Every credit for every system is listed in order, and depending on which system you're using you can simply ignore what doesn't apply.

A Bad Omen

A lot of fuss has been made about technical improvements as part of the v3 system, so let's take a look at my first experience with the new launch:

Same ol', same ol

Yep, though there was no problem paying for the new reference guides on Friday, I couldn't actually download them until Saturday morning. I've tried to be understanding about whoever the IT staff at USGBC and GBCI, but if the new LEED-Online launch is similarly poor then management should strongly consider either increasing funding for this or warming up the ol' pink slip machine... Luckily it's really rainy here in Charleston on this lovely Saturday so I have nothing better to do than read a reference guide and report the findings to you!

And now... the review!

I'm not going to repeat what I've already covered before, so if you haven't read my initial review of the 2009 draft you may want to now. In general, I'm more knowledgable about LEED-NC than either LEED-CS or LEED for Schools, so it's very likely I may have missed a few differences between the current and new versions of those... Off we go!

Minimum Program Requirements

The first new thing you encounter are a set of Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) that describe eligibility for each system and will "evolve over time in tandem with the LEED rating systems." Though there are eight requirements that are standardized for all systems, the thresholds and levels apply differently for each system and are defined in the rating systems linked above. There is going to be a separate "Supplemental Guidance document" on these issues that as far as I can does not yet exist. It looks like these requirements more clearly state which system to use when, which is definitely a good thing. LEED-NC lists the following requirements (I'm only providing short summaries) as a prerequisite to applying for certification:

1. Must Comply with Environmental Laws - ...duh
2. Must be a Building - States that the project must "include the new, ground-up design & construction or major renovation of at least one building in its entirety." This also forces multiple buildings within a "single construction contract and ownership... within the boundary of a contiguous area" to be handled under a single certification. I'm currently working on a set of buildings that would not be in compliance with this requirement. Finally, there is an interesting clause that states that projects must be built "on already existing land"... I guess no LEED v3 certifications on Dubai's artificial beaches!
3. Must Use a Reasonable Site Boundary - There are a lot of clauses in here that sound strict at first but generally allow for loopholes based on special circumstances.
4. Must Comply with Minimum FTE and Floor Area Requirements - This is new... If the project has less than 1 FTE than it is no longer eligible for Indoor Environmental Quality points, though you still must comply with prerequisites. For LEED-NC the project must have at least 1,000 gsf of "indoor, enclosed building floor area".
5. Must Comply with Minimum Occupancy Rates - Applies to LEED-EB only.
6. Registration and Certification Activity Must Comply with Reasonable Timetables and Rating System Sunset Dates - Basically states that if a LEED 2009 project is inactive for 4 years, the GBCI reserves the right to cancel the registration, that all paperwork must be finished within 6 years of the retirement of the system (i.e. 2017 for the LEED 2009 system), and that certification must be complete within 2 years of project occupancy.
7. Must Allow USGBC Access to Whole-Building Energy and Water Usage Data - Let's call this one the Henry Gifford clause. The rating will not be tied to the information provided, and the owner does not have to "actively supply USGBC with information, but simply authorize the USGBC to access the information". This is long overdue, and I imagine in the long term will do more to create accurate energy and water modeling standards than anything else to date. Long overdue and a great idea. As to what 'allowing USGBC access' means is yet to be seen.



Go Go Gadget-Debate!

8. Must Comply with a Minimum Building Area to Site Area Ratio - The project's floor area must be at least 2% of the total site area. I'd be curious to learn the reasoning behind this clause. I suspect it has something to do with the sometimes contrary goals of the development density and maximize open space credits.

Regional Priority Credits

The regional 'bonus points' mentioned in the first review post are not spelled out in the reference guide in any real detail other than to say that points will be determined automatically in LEED-Online based on zip code, and that "the USGBC website also contains a searchable database of Regional Priority credits" that does not yet exist.

EDIT - 04.21.09 - The regional credits have now been released. Find a link to these and my first take on the matter here.

LEED-CS Appendices

Featured in the original LEED-CS reference guides, there are a series of appendices that have been updated and expanded in the current edition. Most notable is a greatly improved default occupancy count list (now featuring 13 building types instead of only 4) that includes both FTE and transient occupancy numbers where applicable. I would suggest many NC projects will benefit from these numbers as well, particularly as they relate to hotels, retail, and restaurants which were previously unavailable. There are also new sections on Tenant Lease or Sales Agreements and Precertification Guidance.

Key Credit Changes

Again... this is only the stuff that hasn't been mentioned earlier... Most of the comments below reflect basic clarifications, but a few credits (see SSc5.1 for the first example) have structural changes to the credits that were essentially not voted on during the draft phase. Ditto for the mandatory program requirements covered above. This is my one major problem with the way the drafts are commented on, voted for, and approved. I would argue that having the distinction between the 'rating system' and the 'reference guide' is meaningless, the reference guides ARE the rating system. I would hope future approval processes for LEED will allow for the evaluation of the entire system, not just the first few pages. Basic referenced standards updates (i.e. from a 2004 to a 2007 standard) are not addressed in the comments below.

Sustainable Sites

SSp1 - Construction Activity Pollution Prevention (NC, CS, Schools) - Now requires photo documentation, inspection logs, or reports to verify compliance.

SSc4.1 - Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access (NC, CS, Schools) - The CIR approved exemplary performance option about 'doubling transit ridership' has been formally incorporated into the reference guide.

SSc4.2 - Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms (NC, CS, Schools) - Offers clearer guidance on determining FTE and occupancy counts than previous editions.

SSc4.3 - Alternative Transportation--Low-Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles (NC, CS, Schools) - Clearly defines preferred parking via discounts for spaces as at least 20% below the normal price. For NC projects, defines a compliance path option for a low-emitting vehicle sharing program.

SSc5.1 - Maximize Open Space (NC, CS, Schools) - In the implementation section, there is a clause that states "if a 10-acre site contains 5 acres of greenfield and 5 acres of previously developed land, site disturbance must be limited in the greenfield area, and native and adapted vegetation must be protected or restored for at least 50% (excluding the building footprint) of the previously developed site area." This seems like it could be pretty confusing and limiting on sites where this occurs. There is also an additional exemplary performance option (also not voted on) that allows credit for restoring 30% of the site including the building footprint OR 75% of the site excluding the building footprint, whichever is greater.

SSc7.1 - Heat Island Effect--Non-Roof (NC, CS, Schools) - Allows area shaded by solar panels or other renewable energy sources (say, over parking) to be added to your qualifying area calculation. A graphic (page 115) showing shaded area resulting from vegetation indicates significantly more shading area than I would have typically assumed...

SSc8 - Light Pollution Reduction - Lighting zones better clarified. Looks like they forgot to include sports field allowances for schools on page 131... Whoops! The numbers do show up on page 137 though.

Water Efficiency

WEp1 and WEc2 - Water Use Reduction (NC, CS, Schools) - The 20% requirement that was formerly a point is now a prerequisite. Points begin at a 30% reduction and rise up to 45% for exemplary performance. In general there is some helpful information about how the EPA WaterSense program requirements relate to the LEED requirements.

EDIT 02/11/10 - I've recently discovered that in addition to adding a prerequisite, the baseline that the design cases are compared to has shifted from 2.2 gpm to .5 gpm for public faucets. This change has been explained in detail in a post called Key Baseline Changes in 2009 Edition of WEc3, Water Use Reduction.

WEc4 - Process Water Use Reduction (Schools only) - Nothing major changing here, but I must wonder why this hasn't be adopted to fit into NC and CS projects? Again I blame the limited means of commenting and adapting drafts of rating systems.

Random Entertaining Picture Break:

A literal (fire) stairway to heaven?

Back to work...

Energy and Atmosphere

EAp1 (EAc3) - Fundamental (Enhanced) Commissioning of Building Energy Systems (NC, CS, and Schools) - Provides much greater detail of step-by-step process for moving through owner's project requirements, basis of design, and commissioning coordination as well as greater detail about who is and is not allowed to act as the commissioning authority, though none of these requirements are new as far as I can tell.

EAp2 (EAc1) - Minimum (Optimize) Energy Performance (NC, CS, and Schools) - Though calculations are now based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007 instead of the less stringent 2004 edition, the required benchmarks have been lowered as well (the v3 prerequisite calls for a 10% reduction over 2007 standard, whereas in v2.2 a 14% reduction over the 2004 standard is required). Additional ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide compliance paths have been added for retail, small warehouse buildings, and schools. Beyond that, I would love it if someone more familiar with the details of energy performance would be willing to comment on changes...

EAc2 - On-Site Renewable Energy (NC, CS, and Schools) - This credit now offers regular points generating as little as 1% and as much as 13% of the power needed by the building (exemplary performance is set at 15%). There is also a clause that clearly forbids including energy that is generated but not used or energy that is to be sold back to the grid (presumably via net-metering). Furthermore, the owner can not sell Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) for the power they are claiming as part of calculations. This language is not in the v2 reference guides, though there may have been a CIR related to the subject already in effect that I'm not aware of. There is also a documentation requirement in regards to "any incentives that were provided to support the installation of on-site renewable energy systems."

EAc5.2 - Measurement and Verification--Tenant Submetering (CS only) - In addition to v2 requirements, the project team must "[p]rovide a process for corrective action if the results of the M&V plan indicate that energy savings are not being achieved."

Materials and Resources

This edition of the reference guide finally references MasterFormat 2004 in it's definitions of what is and is not included in the qualified materials figures for MRc3-7. Instead of the 1997 divisions 2-10 definition, they now cite 2004 divisions 3-10, 31.6, 32.1, 32.3, and 32.9. Division 12 (furniture and furnishings) is still optional.

MRp1 - Storage and Collection of Recyclables (NC, CS, and Schools) - Clearly indicates that "it may be possible to create a central collection area that is outside of the building footprint or project site boundary" if you can "document how the recyclable materials will be transported to the separate collection area." This was allowed previously as evidenced by CIR's but caused confusion among many.

MRc1.1 - Building Reuse--Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof (NC, CS, and Schools) - Due to additional points being assigned to these credits, the thresholds for achievement have changed. 55%-95% for NC, 25-75 for CS, and 75-95 for Schools. Only CS has an exemplary performance option at 95%.

MRc5 - Regional Materials (NC, CS, and Schools) - Clarifies 'manufacturing location' as the "place of final assembly of components into the building product that is furnished and installed by the tradeworkers", which is consistent with past CIR's but caused confusion among many. Annoyingly, a later example graphic shows multiple manufacturing locations all being within the circle, making me doubt myself about the certainty of this ruling?

MRc6 - Rapidly Renewable Materials (NC, CS, and Schools) - Now includes a graphic (below - taken from page 389 of the guide) showing how wood is clearly not within the USGBC's definition of rapidly renewable. Take that, lumber-industry shills!

Five Fingers to the Face!

MRc7 - Certified Wood - Goes into much greater detail about FSC chain-of-custody reporting requirements and how to report them for LEED purposes.

Indoor Environmental Quality

EQp3 - Minimum Acoustical Performance (Schools only) - The USGBC has simplified but strengthened the compliance paths for this credit, essentially calling for sound absorptive materials for an are larger than ceiling area. A much more prescriptive approach will make this credit possible to understand and implement by architects, though some guidance will still be needed regarding background noise levels and possibly ANSI Standard S12.60-2002. I would greatly appreciate an acoustician's point of view on the new requirements if you would care to share your thoughts in the comments.

EQc4 - Low-Emitting Materials (NC, CS, and Schools) - I'm a bit upset on this one... wasn't a large part of the LEED 2009 system supposed to be credit alignment? The LEED-Schools version still references separate standards than NC and CS?!? No word yet on whether or not the PIECAP ruling for the previous version still applies. A link to a list of LEED-Schools compliant products is available here. Similarly, why aren't the full six options available to NC and CS projects?

EQc4.3 - Low-Emitting Materials--Flooring Systems (NC, CS, and Schools) - This was formerly the 'carpet systems' standard, now expanded to included hard surface flooring. The standard carpets remains the same. FloorScore is used for other surfaces, and any stains or sealants on wood or other materials must comply with EQc4.1 requirements. An alternative option is to use products meeting CHiPS requirements.

EQc5 - Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control (NC, CS, and Schools) - Those metal grates by your main entries must be 10' long instead of just 6'. Also, there is a new requirement to "provide containment for appropriate disposal of hazardous liquid wastes in places where water and chemical concentrate mixing occurs." There are also additional requirements for separating 'battery banks used to provide temporary back-up power'.

EQc7.2 - Thermal Comfort--Verification (NC and Schools) - There is now a clause that state that earning this credit "is contingent on achieving EQc7.1, Thermal Comfort--Design." I checked the old NC reference guide and couldn't find anywhere where this was required. Our projects haven't had any problem achieving 7.1 before, so I can't be sure if this is something I've missed in the past? Again, this seems like a very reasonable clause, but shouldn't it have been part of the draft and not buried in section 4 of the reference guide?

EQc8.1 - Daylight and Views--Daylight (NC, CS, and Schools) - This credit has abandoned the 2% daylight factor calculation in favor of one that uses a more simple multiplication of glazing visible transmittance and window to floor area ratio. There are also now maximum footcandle levels (500 fc)if you're using a simulation. There is a clause that rids you of the maximum levels if you "incorporate view-preserving automated shades for glare control." Finally, there is a fourth "combination" option that allows you to use any of the above to document individual compliant spaces. This could be very helpful in a lot of situations where you have a bunch of 'normal' spaces and one or two weird ones (i.e. an atrium spanning multiple floors).

EQc8.2 - Daylight and Views--Views (NC, CS, and Schools) - Nothing substantial changed here, though I just wanted to point out that Figure 3 on page 570 isn't technically correct. Every piece of the open plan office should have access to views since they are surrounded on three side by windows. The drawing indicates blind spots along every wall, which is not the case since one could just look out windows along the other wall. Nit-picky? Yes, but I can already see the arguments popping up in offices across the land!

EQc9 - Enhanced Acoustical Performance (Schools only) - This was downgraded from up to two points being offered currently to only one in the future. The lower levels of the requirements (min 35 STC between rooms and max 40 dBA background noise) are the ones that made the cut. Option 2 (about HVAC RC levels) was removed entirely.

Innovation in Design

IDc1 - Innovation in Design (NC, CS, and Schools) - Expanded to up to 5 points for NC and CS and remaining at 4 points for Schools, there is now a maximum of 3 points allowed for exemplary performance options. There are more (or perhaps just better clarified?) requirements for what constitutes 'innovation and design' eligibility.

That's All Folks!

After about ten hours invested in this review and post, two months of last-minute LEED AP exam classes, and overall dedication to LEED minutiae, I can safely say I'm going to take a LEED break. Please point out any errors or omissions from the above posts by leaving a comment... I hope this is helpful!

Be Careful about Talking the Talk: Promoting LEED Projects the Right Way

The following was spurred by a recent NYTimes blog post about a craigslist post that found a developer who was advertising their "LEED Certified Building" before the certification was complete. From a risk management perspective, it seems to me like this wouldn't be much of a problem unless the building doesn't ultimately earn it's rating. In other words, I doubt the USGBC will be going around suing folks for jumping the gun early, but you can bet someone leasing or purchasing the building sure would if these promises aren't met.

Bad Broker! No Cookie for You!

I figure this is an important enough topic to warrant a post about what you can an can't say during various stages of the certification process, and what guidance the USGBC offers regarding logo usage and other related issues.

"LEED Certified" vs. "LEED Registered"

The only projects that can claim to be LEED Certified are those that have COMPLETELY finished the entire LEED certification process. This sounds obvious, but since it can take awhile for the paperwork to go through, many building owners will really want to start claiming this once the building opens or even before for sales and marketing purposes. It's worth making this clear to your client ahead of time. You don't have to wait for the plaque to arrive in the mail, but you do have to accept the final construction review.

The good news is that a building can claim to be "LEED Registered" the moment you register with LEED-Online and fork over the $450-600 that requires. For all practical purposes, I think just replacing calling a building LEED Registered instead of LEED Certified will carry as much cachet with the general public, so you can still talk up a building's green cred before it's completed. Our company has gone so far as to create a few examples of approved copy for projects pursuing certification but not yet finished, complete with all of the little legal characters:

As a first step toward LEED® Green Building Certification, [organization/owner] has registered this project with the U.S. Green Building Council. To achieve LEED certification, documentation demonstrating that the project has successfully met the sustainable design and performance criteria set forth within the LEED Green Building Rating SystemTM must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by USGBC. LEED® is a registered trademark of the U.S. Green Building Council.

Official accepted language from the USGBC can be found on page 21 of this guide.

LEED-CS Precertification

The USGBC foresaw an owners need to claim something about the sustainability of the building before it is complete, and as a result created a Percertification option for LEED-Core and Shell (LEED-CS) projects. I've been through this before, and I'm not sure I will recommend it again. The costs are relatively low, but it still does not allow you to claim the building is "Certified", only "Precertified", and in my mind you might as well just stick with "Registered" and save yourself the trouble.

Logos Aplenty

You might have noticed that the LEED brand is very important to the USGBC, and as such they provide official guidelines about what you may and may not do with their graphic materials and logos. All of this info is available here. There are important restrictions about how both the USGBC Member logo can be used on your company's marketing materials and how the LEED Certification logo can be used on marketing materials for a specific project.

Dangerzone!!! Claiming the Benefits of Sustainable Design

The most dangerous thing you can do is imply or outright state that the benefits studies are beginning to show about sustainable design in general apply specifically to your project. If someone moves in and does not find the same benefit you claimed, you could be in for some trouble. In general, I make a big effort to distance specific projects from the general benefits by making sure the studies in question (say, about reduced absenteeism due to better indoor air quality) are clearly credited to the people who performed the study and can not be attributed as a claim I have made about what's supposed to happen in this particular building.

It's also important to be careful about the claims you make as a result of energy modeling or water use reduction calculations. I've gone into some detail about this particular issue here.

Have you found yourself in a sticky situation involving marketing of LEED projects? Please share your experiences by leaving a comment!

LEED VOC Requirements for Interior and Exterior Paints

Exterior Paints

Exterior paints and finishes are NOT covered in the requirements of EQc4, Low-Emitting Materials. That is to say, you could technically coat the building in a toxic 5000 g/l stew if you were so inclined. This is a small issue that many of you may already know about, but I remember back in the day I didn't catch the distinction and just received an email question about it earlier today. The reasoning is fairly obvious if you think about it, as exterior paints aren't really going to affect indoor air quality.

Quiz: Are these ladies LEED compliant?

No Interior Paints Used?

The question the reader brought up is whether you can earn the credit if no paints are being installed indoors. This is pretty common on Core and Shell projects, and I wasn't (and am still not) 100% sure about this. My thought is that you're still meeting the intent of the credit by not introducing unecessary coatings with harmful effect.

I did notice reading the CS Reference Guide (June 06 edition) that there is an exemplary performance point available for requiring and enforcing "compliance with the suite of EAc4 [note: I'm assuming this is a typo that should be EQc4] credits for 100% of the tenant spaces". Frequently in CS you're allowed to substitute lease restrictions instead of actually complying with the credit requirements when the requirements of the credit are not in your scope of work.

I've listed my thoughts on the lack of interior paints in a CS project issue, but I'm not certain of anything I've posted about it. Anyone who could help clarify these issues would be extremely helpful! Please share your experience by posting a comment!

Jump to earlier post on how primers fit into the VOC limits.

Regionalization, Public Comments, and LEED 2009... Oh My!

or

Your One Stop Shop to Understanding The Proposed LEED 2009 System Without Sifting Through 8000 Pages USGBC Material

NOTE - 03/28/09 - As the new LEED 2009 reference guides have been released, I poured through page by page to give you detailed review of the changes which can be found here. It's still worth reading below for a general introduction, but the new post reviews what was actually approved.

Well folks... just as you get comfortable with LEED 2.2 it's time to start gearing up for the release of LEED 2009 - formerly known as LEED 3.0. (I guess USGBC is taking it's cues from Autodesk, Microsoft, etc. on coming up with new naming conventions every few years to keep things "fresh"). As the resource for LEED AP's everywhere, Real Life LEED is here to give you a concise and poorly copy-edited guide of overviews of major changes and a plea for all those who like to bitch about LEED to actually submit comments and change the system!

What's Changing?

The "LEED 2009 Vision and Executive Summary" basically states that LEED is growing at an exponential rate, will now start to be revised on a periodic basis much similar to code improvements, incorporate a "transparent environmental/human impact credit weighting" scheme, and add some form of regionalism into the point system. LEED-NC, LEED-CS, LEED-CI, LEED-EB, and LEED for Schools are all being edited under the new system.

The credits themselves are barely touched. Looking at the updates to LEED-NC, only a few things jump out at me. Your water use reductions jump from 20%/30% to 30%/40% and the 20% threshold is now a prerequisite. The EAc1 points are now based on ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The credit for CRI Green Label carpets (EQc4.3) is now expanded to include pretty much all other flooring options. There are now "bonus" points that you can earn that are dependent on the building location (see explanation below).

Other than that, the changes are mostly semantic clarifications and updated "Requirements" sections that incorporate the latest credit interpretation rulings (CIRs). You can see the updated LEED 2009 draft rating systems at the following links - all in annoying .zip format!

• New Construction
• Core and Shell
• Commercial Interiors
• Existing Buildings
• Schools

Credit Weighting

The easy to use 10-step weighting process (<-sarcasm) that is proposed is described in a series of utterly incomprehensible documents that can be found here. My best summary goes something like this:

The reason for the weighting change is that points were previously assigned in a less than scientific way and the USGBC would like to have a better argument for why one credit is assigned a higher point value than another. The new weightings are based on a complex system based on the EPA's "Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts", aka TRACI. In an effort to provide transparency, the USGBC releases far more information about the weightings than any reasonable non-academic should be willing to digest. Credits related to energy use, water use, and transportation now have more impact on your total score. Credits related to siting (non-energy related), materials, indoor environmental quality, and waste managment have less of an impact. Overall, I think the changes make sense. Using the proposed LEED-NC point allocations, water use eekes up from 7% of the points to 10%, a number I think should go even higher. Energy use now accounts for 35% of possible points instead of 25%, and transportation credits (SSc2 and SSc4.1-4.4) make the biggest jump from 7% to 17% under the new system. Long story short, all of the systems under review will know have 110 points including 5 Innovation and Design points, 4 "Regionalization" points (see below), and 1 point for having a LEED AP, which is now separate from the other ID points. The new thresholds for certification levels are as follows:

• Certified: 40-49 points
• Silver: 50-59 points
• Gold: 60-79 points
• Platinum: 80-110 points

Regionalization Credits

There is no information currently available as to what these points will look like. All I've been able to find in the documentation provided by the USGBC is that "These Regional Bonus Credits will be identified by the USGBC Chapters and Regional Councils for each “environmental zone” and a maximum of four points are available for project teams to pursue. This work is currently underway."

It sound like each USGBC Region will have the authority to create six potential bonus credits, of which you may pursue a maximum of four. This is a very good idea, though it will be interesting to see how the balloting process (if any) is handled within each region. Being from coastal South Carolina (the land of 100% humidity), I would love to credits for harvesting water from air.

Yes... I know this is a horrible photoshop effort

Public Comment Period Ends June 22nd!

Have a problem with the LEED system? Now's your chance! Be sure to comment on the draft 2009 systems before the deadline to make your voice heard. I get so frustrated when I hear people complain about LEED seeking to serve private interests when the whole process is so democratic...

What are your thoughts on the system updates? Share them with us in the comments section, after you share them with the USGBC first of course!

The ID Credit Gold Box!

Innovation in Design Credit Catalog

This may be old news for some of you, but for those of you who haven't seen the "Innovation in Design Credit Catalog" from the USGBC you're really missing out!

This is essentially a giant, FREE spreadsheet that chronicles EVERY IDc1 credit submitted (and presumably accepted) before the Summer of 2007. Much like any commercial for financial services, there is a disclaimer that essentially says "past performance does not indicate future results". With that in mind, you can't assume that directly copying one of these past strategies will work for you.

Forgive me for my point-mongering ways, but if you're right on the border between gold and silver you might find a few things already in your project that you could submit if you have a few IDc1 slots left (there are four total). These are organized by category.

I was surprised by how little it can take to get a point. One project applied for a point by stating that the owner would provide all employees with reusable coffee mugs to reduce waste, along with using fountain drink machines instead of can dispensers. While a great idea, this probably costs next to nothing and could be used in any project. As a whole though, most of the submissions were rather robust examples of great sustainable design ideas.

If you have any suggestions for great ID ideas that could work for many projects, please share you thoughts in the comments section!

LEED for Projects Under Construction

At some point in your illustrious career as a LEED AP a client is going to come to you asking what it will take to get his non-LEED-and-already-under-construction-project certified. You likely brought it up 6 months ago when this sort of thing would have been easy, but he just read an article in Fortune or BusinessWeek about how LEED certified projects have higher lease rates and any office building without a LEED stamp won't be considered "Class A" space in three or four years or something... In any case, it's your job to see if it's possible.

The Real Life LEED Guide to Determining Certification Feasibility for Projects Under Construction

If anyone wants to join RealLifeLEED as a title and header editor please let me know. I'm obviously not very good.

First things first... Check the Prereqs!

I suggest going in order of easiest to hardest things to do to get this done. Check with the contractor to make sure they're complying with the requirements of SSp1. Then start talking to your mechanical engineer. You'll need them to look at the refrigerants, IAQ, and energy performance of the building. Hopefully they'll be able to tell if you've exceeded ASHRAE 90.1 by 14% to meet the new prerequisite requiring at least two EAc1 Optimize Energy Performance credit without having to run through a costly ASHRAE 90.1 calculation. If you can't meet the prereqs you can go ahead an give up now.

Second round: The Money

If it's looking like we'll meet the other prereq's I go ahead and get a rough estimate on the fees for a commissioning services if one isn't already on the project. Add that to the registration and certification fees, and any fees you (or other consultants) would charge for the additional service. It's typically a significant enough amount to get the owner to think about how much they want to do this.

Also make the client aware that this is likely to increase the amount of change orders from the contractor. He may need to now purchase things like bike racks, metal grates for the entrances, etc.

Third round: Checklist Time

If you passed the first few tests it's time to pull out your trusty credit checklist and take a look at where you stand. A lot of easy points when designed from the beginning may have to be thrown out. If the contractor hasn't been worried about VOC levels, sourcing regionally, or diverting waste there are a lot of MR and EQ points that are a lost cause. If you're early in the construction schedule there may be opportunities to salvage some of these, but generally it's too late.

If you think you have enough to make at least a certified level start running through the paperwork and get on the contractor about collecting receipts, managing his waste stream, etc. Hopefully when everything's finished you end up with a plaque, but I'd be very clear to the client about how you can't guarantee anything rating wise.

Been through this before? Please share your experiences in the comments section.

Commingled Trash and Recyclables

So the building's finished, you're putting together all of the documentation, and you notice that somebody forgot to include an area for storing and collecting recyclables! A classic "oh s#&*" moment... This is a pretty serious problem, as since this space is part of a prerequisite, all of your hopes for LEED certification are shot, right?

Mixed waste recycling to the rescue!!!

Way to go WM!

Lucky for you, there are companies out there that will take everything in a waste bin, from food to paper to aluminum and glass. They then separate it off-site, and recycle everything they can. More importantly, a CIR dated 12/15/06 has indicated that this practice is acceptable. The ultimate result is that you can achieve this credit without incorporating a storage and collection facility on-site. Though it doesn't expressly say so in the CIR, I would imagine you should provide some sort of documentation that this service is being used.

There's good reason for this acceptance, as the system is fool proof... No need to separate bins, have someone come pick up the recyclables, etc. You just throw everything away and the magic machines take care of the rest. Not to say there aren't any problems with the system, but basic concept is sound. Of course, you could always just build a shed outside, but where's the fun in that.

Timekillers - LEED-CS EQc8.2 - Daylight and Views

Are you working on a spec office building and committed to providing LEED documentation? You may not realize you've essentially committed to designing a tenant upfit for free! LEED-CS credit EQ 8.2, Daylight and Views, Views for 90% of Spaces requires the development of "a feasible tenant layout(s) per the default occupancy counts (or some other justifiable occupancy count) that can be used in the analysis of the credit." Being familiar with the LEED-NC version of this credit, I overlooked this when quickly browsing the CS reference guide and putting together the documentation for a recent project. As you can imagine, putting this together in both plan and section can add significantly to the hours required to complete the work, so consider that when calculating fees and schedules. On the bright side, if you get the job for the upfit design you're in pretty good shape...

LEED-CS SSc4.3 Credit Template is Wrong!

The credit template for Sustainable Sites credit 4.3, Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles is messed up for option two.

Bad Template! No soup for you!

Note: 937 spaces would only require 47 preferred parking spaces, but we like priuses so much we decided to give them two more places to park...

It should be 5% of total on-site parking instead of the 3% listed. Note, you will need to input the correct number of parking spaces (in the second box... and the project) regardless of what the "Required" box says. Don't forget to always round up (i.e. 4.1 spaces = 5 spaces). Also, the similar LEED-NC template is correct. It is only the LEED-CS template that has the error. HUMBLE PIE ALERT!!! CORRECTION BELOW Alert reader Josh Greenfield pointed out some inconsistencies between my original post (above) and the truth. I'm sure this is the first time of many... please feel free to call me out on any post in the comments section!

Really it boils down the the template being even more wrong than I realized. The "Option 2" that I referenced is really Option 1 in the LEED-CS reference guide. Option 1 on the credit template references a compliance path that doesn't even exist for LEED-CS! In the LEED-CS reference guide:

• Option 1 - preferred parking for 5% of parking spots based on parking capacity
• Option 2 - alternative fueling stations for 3% of parking spots based on parking capacity

The credit template says:

• Option 1 - I'm guessing they just copied from the NC version, requiring fuel efficient vehicles based on 3% FTE. This isn't even an option for CS!
• Option 2 - preferred parking for 3% of total parking on the site.

I've only submitted for preferred parking, but the review comments I received indicate that the refernce guide requirements, not the credit template requirements, are what need to be followed. I'm guessing if you want to submit for the real Option 2 (alternative fueling stations) you would need to either fill everything into the alternative compliance section or steal the LEED-NC credit template from another project and save it to the supporting documentation section? Leave a comment if you've encountered this before...